The network is ME!

The arrogance of the IT industry in the boom years can be summed up in Sun Microsystems' famous declaration "The Network Is the Computer." Scott McNealy was wise to only imply "...so long as it is a Sun." What the Internet bubble burst and Tele.bomb proved was that the computer was the computer, the OS was the OS, the browser was the browser (for a while) and the network (albeit a bunch of interconnected purpose-built computers) was the network.

While some may argue with the above simplification, what was most importantly demonstrated was that the user was the user, and the user could care less about what was called what. Even IT professionals tired of the ideological wars over where "intelligence" should lie and who was going to be the benevolent controller of it.

The old "dumb" network vs. "smart" end-points argument is moot. "Where should intelligence and control be?" The answer is YES! We need smart people, using smart stuff with smart (easy-to-use and flexible) interfaces, interacting with each other over smart (trusted and trustworthy) networks that are available always and all ways--everywhere, every time, at the right time in an optimized manner, according to user-determined and controlled policies and rules. Intelligence needs to be every place. Management and control needs to be in the hands of the user--centralized and/or distributed depending on user applications, and their requirements for operationalizing optimal organizational and personal performance.

I remember sitting in the offices of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in the late 1970s with a cadre of PBX industry execs. We were there to lobby against AT&T's proposed Advanced Communications Service. The fear was that by putting voice call control and services (i.e., "intelligence") into the network, AT&T would turn PBXs into dumb valueless appliances and kill off the nascent PBX industry. AT&T could not get its act together. The subsequent Advanced Intelligent Network service that followed around divestiture also crashed and burned. The rest, as they say, is history.

Back then, as now, vendors of "intelligent" devices warned that reliance on the benevolence of those who controlled networking was counter to promotion of customer choice and control and would be an obstacle to innovation, which historically developed at the edge of networks. The analogy was that the U.S. correctly banned electric utilities from the appliance business in the 1930s in order to let others unleash their ingenuity and develop the things that attached to the electric grids. They demanded open interfaces and interconnection, and denied the utilities the opportunity or motive to deploy proprietary termination capabilities for which only their planned devices could provide "maximum" advantage, literally insuring seamless plugging and playing. Sound familiar? The more things change, the more they remain the same.

This issue is back. There is now growing concern about things like Cisco's Intelligent Information Network (IIN) and Microsoft's .NET Framework, to name the two most obvious examples. While not much has changed based on the brickbats continuing to fly over where "intelligence" should lie in the network, what has changed is the profound impact of the Internet and accompanying new technologies and businesses. What has changed is that the capabilities the IT and communications industries have placed in the hands of users means the words "account control" now mean the accounts, and not the vendors, are in control.  This is the user as center stage in reality, and not just in chartware and annual reports. What has changed is that user insistence on standards, the influence of the open source movement and other factors have given users the ability to break "benevolent vendor" architectural lock-in strategies.  

We've reached an inflection point. For the first time the ability to create and sustain network-centric value is not only capable of being determined solely by the user, it should be. Corporate governance, regulatory compliance, privacy, increased physical and virtual risks to network and personal security, personalization and even the dreaded "C" word, convergence, are part of the laundry list of why this is true. Interestingly, Cisco CEO John Chambers articulated this well at their annual analyst event a few months ago when he lamented that if Cisco, and the industry, had understood three years ago that the world was really about solving user challenges and creating great results first--and using technology to do so where applicable second--we might have avoided a whole lot of misery. Technology with quantifiable intent and return, and not for its own sake, was the lesson he said he learned. 

User desires to customize online experiences for their employees, partners and customers--and insure that their policies and rules dominate end-to-end--are the positive drivers of all this. They want it their way. They believe the customer knows best because only the customer really understands their unique circumstances and requirements. They are suspicious of vendors bearing gifts, such as embedded applications and trust, after having been burned by "big IT" promises. However, they are willing to work with a trusted few who are willing to accommodate the forever changed relationship between users and their networks, and hence users and their networking vendors. They are not unwilling to share the risks and the rewards.

In the new era of user control, the network is not the computer: The network is ME. ME the enterprise, individual, work group, etc. As in, "Wherever I am is where you will find me." 

And ME, (I've trademarked the term "V.ME (tm)," the Virtual ME, which describes the open architecture of this new reality from the perspective of content and context mediation as experienced by the user) wants to parse the most valuable information of the networking era--my identity, location and presence. I want it my way, and I want it for all of my many communications persona. In this new world, you will only interact with me based on my terms for engagement, probably in negotiation with yours. In other words, goodbye to all forms of electronic excess. Hello to the freedom to communicate and be responsive, and the control not to--the ability to create order of electronic chaos. 

I want to call the shots on how my communications enabled applications are defined, deployed and managed. I want to determine the five "As": Authentication, Authorization, Access, Applications and Administration. This is the electronic version of my volition.  It is too important to cede control over it to somebody else.

The inflection comes not out of theory, but from CXOs' growing realization they can and must take and exert control.  Networking by permission and exception is not only safe, but is sound business. What the vendors must ponder is how to accommodate this new world of vendor/customer relations. Will they keep things open so they can add value by assisting users attain their organizational? Or do they believe their own vision (read, benevolent "E"vironment/competitive advantage) is so irresistible, and their market leverage so great, they can ignore this looming major trend? 

Embedding trust in the network infrastructure and/or co-opting the decision on which applications run "best" over specified networking architectures, instead of allowing that determination to be made by the customer, seems not only antithetical to what users need, but appears to be a hazardous strategy for all involved. 

Cynics think that embedding "intelligence" in the network for a growing list of applications and services is tantamount to putting a toll booth on the network: "Pay me for my trusted environment for your applications or suffer the consequences." Tony Soprano would be proud.  This is antiquated thinking from the bygone era that started with "Any phone you want so long as it is black...Ma knows best." For those of you who are jargon-crazed and need a fix, the techno-babble version is  "We've crossed the chasm, and are in a major paradigm shift...We can't see it because we are inside the tornado."

The suggestion here is not that vendors should stop pursuing what is in their own best interests. Quite the contrary. What is being suggested is that in the era of end user control, where the network is ME, it is time to reflect on the moment and adjust. There is money to be made from helping users migrate to this new world whose ultimate goal is tight alignment of business imperatives with delivery tools. There is a bonanza awaiting those who can develop, hosting and managing this complex migration and "E"vironments for the vast part of the market that will want to do this but can't do it themselves.

It will be interesting to see if those who lead the chorus on "Making change part of your culture or you will not survive" can adjust themselves to the new realities.

The trend is the users' friend. Thus far, Microsoft's Passport single sign-on has been a dud, but watch out for it roaring back in a more comprehensive move by the gang in Redmond to include it as part of a grandiose scheme to usurp all of the five "As" in the long-awaited Longhorn OS. Cisco may wish to embed as much as possible into its architecture and network elements, but should look closely at things like SIP phone supplier PingTel's recent decision to go open-source with its code. We are about to undergo a major shift in what is valuable in the network.

Users want and will demand options and vendor freedom. Microsoft, despite its desktop dominance, has not stopped residential users from using Windows as the OS and IE as the browser with Yahoo! for their personal portal and Google for their search engine. Enterprises are no different. Utility computing, and the Web services that will ride on the pipes, means the network should be smart enough to be a true, vendor-agnostic utility. Indeed, there is much work already afoot in the computing industry to assure that this is the case, and that "smart" networking hegemony is curtailed in favor of user control exerted at the edge. Grid computing, peer-to-peer networking, XML and the evolution of the new data center and content delivery networks are only the tip of the iceberg.

Whether the communications industry can catch up to what is going on and change their business models in term to derive premium value is an open question. The network as ME will be an interesting challenge for equipment vendors and services providers alike.

Peter Bernstein is President of Infonautics Consulting Inc. He can be reached at pb111451@optonline.net.